Here's the speech itself. I expect this will convert all you doubters into enthusiastic supporters
of the free trade agenda:

Embracing the Challenge of Free Trade: Competing and
Prospering in a Global Economy, by Ben S. Bernanke, Chair, Federal
Reserve Board: Trade is as old as humanity, or nearly so. Archaeological sites demonstrate
that ancient peoples traded objects such as rare stones and shells across fairly
long distances even in prehistoric times (Guisepi, 2000). Over the centuries,
with stops and starts, the volume of trade has expanded exponentially, driven in
large part by advances in transportation and communication technologies.
Steamships replaced sailing ships; railroads succeeded canal barges; the
telegraph supplanted the Pony Express. Today, in a world of container ships,
jumbo jets, and the Internet, goods and many services are delivered faster and
more cheaply (in inflation-adjusted terms) than ever before.1

Today I will discuss the crucial economic benefits we receive from the
ongoing expansion of international trade. I will also address the adverse
effects of trade and some possible ways to mitigate them. I will argue that one
possible response to the dislocations that may result from trade--a retreat into
protectionism and isolationism--would be self-defeating and, in the long run,
probably not even feasible. Instead, our continued prosperity depends on our
embracing the many opportunities provided by trade, even as we provide a helping
hand to individuals and communities that may have suffered adverse consequences.

The Benefits of Trade
At the most basic level, trade is beneficial because it allows people to
specialize in the goods and services they produce best and most efficiently. For
example, we could conceivably all grow our own food and provide our own medical
care. But because farming and medicine require special knowledge and skills, a
far more efficient arrangement is for the farmer to specialize in growing food
and for the doctor to specialize in treating patients. Through the
specialization made possible by trade, the farmer can benefit from the doctor's
medical knowledge and the doctor can enjoy lunch. The opportunity to trade
allows everyone to play to his or her own strengths while benefiting from the
productive skills of the whole community. Indeed, economists have demonstrated
that trade between two people can be beneficial even if one of them is more
skilled than the other at every task, so long as the more-skilled
person specializes in those tasks at which he or she is relatively more
productive.

What applies to individuals applies to nations as well. Two centuries ago the
economist David Ricardo famously observed that, if England specialized in making
cloth while Portugal specialized in producing wine, international trade would
allow both countries to enjoy more of both goods than would be possible if each
country produced only for domestic consumption and did not trade. As in the case
of individuals, this conclusion applies even if one country can produce both
cloth and wine more cheaply than the other, so long as each country
specializes in the activity at which it is relatively more productive. A telling
confirmation of Ricardo's insight is that, when nations go to war, their first
order of business is often to try to block the other's access to trade. In the
American Civil War, the North won in large part because its blockade of Southern
ports prevented the Confederacy from exporting its cotton. In the twentieth
century, the fact that Great Britain and its allies were able to disrupt German
trade more successfully than Germany could impede the flow of goods into and out
of Great Britain bore importantly on the ultimate outcomes of both world wars.

Patterns of trade are determined by variations in a number of factors,
including climate, the location of natural resources, and the skills and
knowledge of the population. I suppose that one could grow roses commercially
here in Montana for Valentine's Day, but it would likely require
climate-controlled greenhouses complete with artificial lighting--very
expensive. A much less costly solution is for Montanans to grow and sell wheat,
then use the proceeds to buy roses from localities where the weather is balmy in
February.

This is all standard textbook material, and it may well leave you unconvinced
of the importance of international trade. After all, the United States is a big
country, and we can certainly achieve many of the benefits of specialization by
trading within our own borders. How important is it for the health of our
economy to trade actively with other countries? As best we can measure, it is
critically important. According to one recent study that used four approaches to
measuring the gains from trade, the increase in trade since World War II has
boosted U.S. annual incomes on the order of $10,000 per household (Bradford,
Grieco, and Hufbauer, 2006).2
The same study found that removing all remaining barriers to trade would raise
U.S. incomes anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 per household. Other research has
found similar results. Our willingness to trade freely with the world is indeed
an essential source of our prosperity--and I think it is safe to say that the
importance of trade for us will continue to grow.

In practice, the benefits of trade flow from a number of sources. By giving
domestic firms access to new markets, trade promotes efficient specialization,
permits economies of scale, and increases the potential returns to innovation.3
U.S. firms increasingly seek to expand production and profits through new export
opportunities; indeed, U.S. exports grew about 9 percent in real (that is,
inflation-adjusted) terms last year. Export-oriented U.S. manufacturing
industries include producers of aircraft, construction equipment, plastics, and
chemicals. The United States also excels in the manufacture and export of
sophisticated capital goods and scientific equipment. Outside of manufacturing,
a number of U.S. high-tech companies, including software developers and online
service providers, are world leaders in their fields. American films and music
attract large worldwide audiences. Montana's exports include wheat, metal ores,
and high-tech materials that are critical to the production of semiconductors.

Firms that emphasize exports are among America's most dynamic and productive
companies. Relative to firms that produce strictly for the domestic market,
exporters tend to be more technologically sophisticated and to create better
jobs. Among U.S. manufacturers, for example, exporters pay higher wages and add
jobs more rapidly than non-exporters (Bernard and Jensen, 1999). A significant
portion of U.S. international trade is conducted by multinational firms; studies
show that these firms generally pay higher wages than purely domestic firms,
both in the United States and in developing countries (Doms and Jensen, 1998;
Bhagwati, 2004, p. 172). U.S. firms with a global reach tend to be better
diversified and are better able to respond to new market opportunities wherever
they may arise.

Exports are important, but so are imports. Without trade, some goods would be
extremely expensive or not available at all, such as the Valentine's Day roses
of my earlier example or out-of-season fruits and vegetables. Trade also makes
goods available in more brands and varieties; examples include automobiles,
consumer electronics, garments and footwear, wines, and cheeses. One of the
great attractions of globalization is that it brings to consumers the best of
many cultures. And of course, global trade allows many types of goods,
especially consumer goods, to be purchased at lower prices. Lower prices help
all consumers but may be especially helpful to those with tight budgets. Indeed,
a number of the large, import-intensive retail chains in the United States are
focused on low- and moderate-income consumers, who benefit from being able to
buy a wide variety of lower-priced goods.

Another substantial benefit of trade is the effect it tends to have on the
productivity of domestic firms and on the quality of their output.4
By creating a global market, trade enhances competition, which weeds out the
most inefficient firms and induces others to improve their products and to
produce more efficiently. The U.S. manufacturing sector, which is perhaps the
sector most exposed to international competition, has achieved truly remarkable
increases in its productivity in the past decade or so. In addition,
international supply chains, made possible by advances in communication and
transportation, reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of U.S. firms.
Trade also promotes the transfer of technologies, as when multinational firms or
transplanted firms bring advanced production methods to new markets.

Trade and finance are closely linked and mutually supporting, and in recent
decades international financial flows have grown even more quickly than trade
volumes. The globalization of finance plays to the strengths of U.S. financial
institutions and financial markets. The United States has a large surplus in
trade in financial services, and U.S. firms are leaders in providing banking,
investment, and insurance services to the world. Financial openness allows U.S.
investors to find new opportunities abroad and makes it possible for foreigners
to invest in the United States. The ability to invest globally also permits
greater diversification and sharing of risk.

Trade benefits advanced countries like the United States, but open trade is,
if anything, even more important for developing nations. Trade and globalization
are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, especially in Asia,
but also in parts of Africa and Latin America (Bhagwati, 2004). As a source of
economic growth and development in poor countries, trade is proving far more
effective than traditional development aid (Easterly, 2006). The transition
economies of central and eastern Europe have also benefited greatly from trade,
especially trade with the rest of the European Union. A recent study by the
World Bank compared two groups of developing countries, dubbed the "globalizers"
and the "nonglobalizers." Collectively, the globalizers have doubled the ratio
of trade to their gross domestic product (GDP) over the past twenty years, in
part because of sharp cuts in tariffs on imports; the nonglobalizers,
collectively, have seen a decline in their trade-to-GDP ratio over the same
period (Dollar and Kraay, 2004). Among the globalizers, economic growth
accelerated from 2.9 percent per year in the 1970s, to 3.5 percent in the 1980s,
to 5 percent in the 1990s. In contrast, the nonglobalizers have seen their
growth decline from 3.3 percent per year in the 1970s to 0.8 percent in the
1980s and 1.4 percent in the 1990s. The study also found that, among the
globalizers, absolute poverty declined significantly and the degree of income
inequality changed little.5

If trade is so beneficial, why do we sometimes see political resistance to
freer, more open trade? Notably, negotiations in the so-called Doha Round of
trade talks now under way have proceeded very slowly, notwithstanding a
consensus among economists that all countries involved would enjoy substantial
benefits from further trade liberalization. One important reason is that,
although trade increases overall prosperity, the benefits for some people may
not exceed the costs, at least not in the short run. Clearly, the expansion of
trade helps exporting firms and their workers. As consumers, nearly all of us
benefit from trade by gaining access to a broader range of goods and services.
But some of us, such as workers in industries facing new competition from
imports, are made at least temporarily worse off when trade expands. Because the
benefits of trade are widely diffused and often indirect, those who lose from
trade are often easier to identify than those who gain, a visibility that may
influence public perceptions and the political process. That said, the job
losses and worker displacement sometimes associated with expanded trade are a
legitimate economic and social issue. In the remainder of my remarks, I will
focus on the impact of trade on U.S. jobs--both positive and negative--and
discuss some possible policy responses.

Trade and Jobs
Does opening U.S. markets to foreign producers destroy jobs at home? The
expansion of trade or changes in trading patterns can indeed destroy specific
jobs. For example, foreign competition has been an important factor behind
declining employment in the U.S. textile industry, including in my home state of
South Carolina. Job loss--from any cause--can create hardship for individuals,
their families, and their communities. I will return shortly to the question of
how we should respond to the problem of worker displacement.

For now, however, I will point out that trade also creates jobs--for example,
by expanding the potential market overseas for goods and services produced in
the United States, as I have already discussed. Trade creates jobs indirectly as
well, in support of export activities or as the result of increased economic
activity associated with trade. For example, gains in disposable income created
by lower consumer prices and higher earnings in export industries raise the
demand for domestically produced goods and services. Domestic production and
employment are also supported by expanded access to raw materials and
intermediate goods. The U.S. jobs created by trade also tend to offer higher pay
and demand greater skill than the jobs that are destroyed--although a downside
is that, in the short run, the greater return to skills created by trade may
tend to increase the wage differential between higher-skilled and lower-skilled
workers and thus contribute to income inequality (Bernanke, 2007).

The effects of trade on employment must also be put in the context of the
remarkable dynamism of the U.S. labor market. The amount of "churn" in the labor
market--the number of jobs created and destroyed--is enormous and reflects the
continuous entry, exit, and resizing of firms in our ever-changing economy.
Excluding job layoffs and losses reversed within the year, over the past decade
an average of nearly 16 million private-sector jobs have been eliminated each
year in the United States, an annual loss equal to nearly 15 percent of the
current level of nonfarm private employment.6
The vast majority of these job losses occur for a principal reason other than
international trade (Kletzer, 2001; Bernanke, 2004). Moreover, during the past
ten years, the 16 million annual job losses have been more than offset by the
creation of about 17 million jobs per year--some of which, of course, are
attributable to the direct and indirect effects of trade. Truly, the U.S. labor
market exhibits a phenomenal capacity for creative destruction.

If trade both destroys and creates jobs, what is its overall effect on
employment? The answer is, essentially none. In the long run, the workings of a
competitive labor market ensure that the number of jobs created will be
commensurate with the size of the labor force and with the mix of skills that
workers bring. Thus, in the long run, factors such as population growth, labor
force participation rates, education and training, and labor market institutions
determine the level and composition of aggregate employment. To see the
irrelevance of trade to total employment, we need only observe that, between
1965 and 2006, the share of imports in the U.S. economy nearly quadrupled, from
4.4 percent of GDP to 16.8 percent. Yet, reflecting growth in the labor force,
employment more than doubled during that time, and the unemployment rate was at
about 4-1/2 percent at both the beginning and end of the period. Furthermore,
average real compensation per hour in the United States has nearly doubled since
1965.

Although many readily accept that balanced trade does not reduce aggregate
employment, some might argue that the United States' current large trade deficit
must mean that the number of U.S. jobs has been reduced on net. However, the
existence of a trade deficit or surplus, by itself, does not have any evident
effect on the level of employment. For example, across countries, trade deficits
and unemployment rates show little correlation. Among our six Group of Seven
partners (the world's leading industrial countries), three have trade surpluses
(Canada, Germany, and Japan). However, based on the figures for February of this
year, the unemployment rates in Canada (5.3 percent) and in Germany (9.0
percent) are significantly higher than the 4.5 percent rate in the United
States; and Japan's unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, is only a bit lower.7
Factors such as the degree of flexibility in the labor market, not trade, are
the primary source of these cross-country variations in unemployment.

What About Outsourcing Abroad?
The debate about the effects of trade on employment has been intensified by the
phenomenon of outsourcing abroad, or "offshoring." Offshoring has been driven by
several factors, including improvements in international communication, the
computerization and digitization of some business services, and the existence of
educated, often English-speaking workers abroad who will perform the same
services for less pay. A portion, though not all, of these wage differentials
reflects differences in skills and productivity; for example, outsourced
programming work is usually simpler and more routine than programming done in
the United States.

The increase in outsourcing abroad has led to dire predictions about a
wholesale "export" of U.S. jobs in coming years. Although globalization and
trade will continue to be forces for economic change, concerns about a massive
loss of jobs due to offshoring do not seem justified. Companies have found
outsourcing abroad profitable primarily for jobs that can be routinized and
sharply defined. Certainly, advancing technology will continue to increase the
feasibility of providing services from remote locations. For the foreseeable
future, however, most high-value work will require creative interaction among
employees, interaction which is facilitated by physical proximity and personal
contact. Moreover, in many fields, closeness to customers and knowledge of local
conditions are also of great importance. These observations suggest that, for
some considerable time, outsourcing abroad will be uneconomical for many types
of jobs, particularly high-value jobs.8

Moreover, a balanced discussion of outsourcing abroad should reflect that,
just as U.S. firms use the services of foreigners, foreign firms make
considerable use of the services of U.S. residents. Many do not realize that, in
contrast to its trade deficit in goods, the United States runs a significant
trade surplus in services--particularly in business, professional, and technical
services. This country provides many high-value services to users abroad,
including financial, legal, engineering, architectural, and software development
services, whereas many of the services imported by U.S. companies are less
sophisticated and hence of lower value.9
A recent study of twenty-one occupations that are most likely to be affected by
outsourcing found that net job losses were concentrated almost exclusively in
the lower-wage occupations and that strong employment gains have occurred in the
occupations that pay the highest wages.10
Further expansion of trade in services will help, not hurt, the U.S. economy and
the labor market.

Just as discussions of the outsourcing of business services tend to ignore
the services U.S. firms sell to other countries, so do discussions of the
movement of jobs offshore ignore the fact that foreign firms also move jobs to
the United States. Between 1996 and 2004 (the most recent data available), the
employment of U.S. residents by majority-owned nonbank affiliates of foreign
companies operating within the United States increased by about 1 million jobs.
In 2004, U.S. affiliates of foreign companies accounted for more than $500
billion in value added (about half in manufacturing) and about $180 billion in
exports. Globalization and offshoring work both ways.

Responding to Job Displacement
Although trade has many positive effects in the labor market, nothing I have
said this morning is intended to minimize the real costs imposed on workers and
communities when new competition from abroad leads to job losses and
displacement. What can be done to help workers who lose their jobs as a
consequence of expanded trade?

Restricting trade by imposing tariffs, quotas, or other barriers is exactly
the wrong thing to do. Such solutions might temporarily slow job loss in
affected industries, but the benefits would be outweighed, typically many times
over, by the costs, which would include higher prices for consumers and
increased costs (and thus reduced competitiveness) for U.S. firms. Indeed,
studies of the effects of protectionist policies almost invariably find that the
costs to the rest of society far exceed the benefits to the protected industry.
In the long run, economic isolationism and retreat from international
competition would inexorably lead to lower productivity for U.S. firms and lower
living standards for U.S. consumers (Bernanke, 2004).

The better approach to mitigating the disruptive effects of trade is to adopt
policies and programs aimed at easing the transition of displaced workers into
new jobs and increasing the adaptability and skills of the labor force more
generally. Many suggestions for such policies have been made. Currently, the
government's principal program for helping workers displaced by trade is the
Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which is up for renewal before the Congress
this year. As now structured, the program offers up to two and a half years of
job training, allowances for job search and relocation, income support for
eligible workers, and health insurance assistance for some. Elements of other
proposals being discussed (Kletzer and Rosen, 2006; Kling, 2006; Mann 2003,
2004) include job-training tax credits and wage insurance, which would help
offset pay cuts that often occur when displaced workers change jobs. Another
approach is to focus on establishing policies that reduce the cost to workers of
changing jobs, for example, by increasing the portability of pensions or health
insurance between employers. As new technologies expand the range of occupations
that may be subject to international competition, measures to assist affected
workers become all the more important. It would not be appropriate for me to
endorse specific programs; that is the prerogative of the Congress. However, I
can safely predict that these and other policy proposals to address concerns
about worker displacement will be the subject of active debate in coming years.

More generally, investing in education and training would help young people
entering the labor force as well as those already in mid-career to better manage
the ever-changing demands of the workforce (Bernanke, 2007). A substantial body
of research demonstrates that investments in education and training pay high
rates of return to individuals and to society as a whole (Acemogulu and Angrist,
2001; Becker, 1964; Card, 1999; Topel, 2004). Importantly, workforce skills can
be improved not only through K‑12 education, college, and graduate work but also
through a variety of expeditious, market-based channels such as on-the-job
training, coursework at community colleges and vocational schools, extension
courses, and online training. An eclectic, market-responsive approach to
increasing workforce skills is the most likely to be successful.

Whatever the specific approaches chosen, helping workers who have lost
jobs--whether because of trade or other causes--to find new productive work is
good for the economy as well as for the affected workers and their families.
Moreover, if workers and their families are less fearful of change, political
pressure in favor of trade barriers or other measures that would reduce the
flexibility and dynamism of the U.S. economy would be reduced (Kull, 2004).

Conclusion
To sum up, international trade in goods, services, and assets, like other forms
of market-based exchange, allows us to transform what we have into what we need
or want under increasingly beneficial terms. Trade allows us to enjoy both a
more productive economy and higher living standards.

Of course, current trading arrangements are far from perfect. Some features
of the world trading regime, such as excessive restrictions on trade in services
and the uneven protection of intellectual property rights, are both unfair and
economically counterproductive. Working through the World Trade Organization or
in other venues, we should continue to advocate the elimination of trade
distortions and barriers in our trading partners even as we increase the
openness of our own economy. We should also work to ensure that both we and our
trading partners live up to existing agreements under the World Trade
Organization. When trading partners do not meet their obligations, we should
vigorously press our case. Ultimately, a freer and more open trading system is
in everyone's best interest.

Although expansion of trade makes the U.S. economy stronger, as I have noted
today, the broad benefits of trade and the associated economic change may come
at a cost to some individuals, firms, and communities. We need to continue to
find ways to minimize the pain of dislocation without standing in the way of
economic growth and change. Indeed, the willingness to embrace difficult
challenges is a defining characteristic of the American people. With our strong
institutions, deep capital markets, flexible labor markets, technological
leadership, and penchant for entrepreneurship and innovation, no country is
better placed than the United States to benefit from increased participation in
the global economy. If we resist protectionism and isolationism while working to
increase the skills and adaptability of our labor force, the forces of
globalization and trade will continue to make our economy stronger and our
citizens more prosperous.

Doms, Mark E., and J. Bradford Jensen (1998). "Comparing Wages, Skills, and
Productivity between Domestically and Foreign-Owned Manufacturing Establishments
in the United States," in Robert E. Baldwin, Robert E. Lipsey, and J. David
Richardson, eds., Geography and Ownership as Bases for Economic Accounting.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Easterly, William (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts
to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin
Press.

Hummels, David (2006). "Transportation Costs and Trade over Time," in David
Hummels, Anthony Venables, Harry Broadman, and John S. Wilson, rapporteurs,
Transport and International Trade: Round Table 130. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development and European Conference of Ministers of
Transport. Paris: OECD.

3. Cox and Alm (2007) discuss the benefits of trade in the
modern global economy.
Return to text

4. Bernard and Jensen (1999) find that exporting firms are
more productive than non-exporters. Bernard, Jensen, and Schott (2006) document
the tendency of trade to reduce production at low-productivity plants and to
increase output at high-productivity plants in the United States, a shift that
raises average productivity.
Return to text

6. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), over
the past ten years, gross job losses in the United States have averaged about
7.8 million per quarter. Multiplying 7.8 million by 4 suggests that about 31
million U.S. jobs come to an end each year. This figure includes temporary
layoffs, seasonal closings, and other short-term job losses; some research
suggests that longer-term job losses amount to about half of the total (Davis,
Haltiwanger, and Schuh, 1996). Dividing 31 million gross job losses by 2 yields
about 16 million long-term job losses each year.
Return to text

7. February 2007 is the latest month for which these rate
comparisons are available. The data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
which has adjusted them to approximate the U.S. definition of unemployment.
Return to text

8. The economic importance of physical proximity is the
underlying reason that people and businesses are willing to pay high rents and
other costs to live in or near major cities, where they can be near large
numbers of other people and businesses that have related expertise and
interests.
Return to text

9. Another type of service in which the United States has a
strong export position is higher education. In 2005-06, U.S. institutions of
higher learning trained nearly 600,000 foreign students, of whom about half were
studying for graduate and professional degrees. Many foreign students who study
in the United States spend at least some time here subsequently, adding their
skills to those of the domestic workforce (Institute of International Education,
2006).
Return to text

10. Mann (2006, pp. 140-41) analyzes changes from 1999 to
2004. Updating the analysis with 2005 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
does not change these results. Some of the low-wage occupations, such as data
entry and word processing, may have lost jobs to automation rather than
outsourcing.
Return to text

Here's the speech itself. I expect this will convert all you doubters into enthusiastic supporters
of the free trade agenda:

Embracing the Challenge of Free Trade: Competing and
Prospering in a Global Economy, by Ben S. Bernanke, Chair, Federal
Reserve Board: Trade is as old as humanity, or nearly so. Archaeological sites demonstrate
that ancient peoples traded objects such as rare stones and shells across fairly
long distances even in prehistoric times (Guisepi, 2000). Over the centuries,
with stops and starts, the volume of trade has expanded exponentially, driven in
large part by advances in transportation and communication technologies.
Steamships replaced sailing ships; railroads succeeded canal barges; the
telegraph supplanted the Pony Express. Today, in a world of container ships,
jumbo jets, and the Internet, goods and many services are delivered faster and
more cheaply (in inflation-adjusted terms) than ever before.1